ataxiwardance: Very disappointed in J. Alito and the SCOTUS majority’s decision in Fernandez v. California. By allowing co-inhabitants (spouses, roommates, etc.) to waive your constitutional right to be free from warrant-less search and seizure EVEN AFTER you have explicitly told the police they may not enter, the majority has allowed another private citizen to effectively extinguish your constitutional right and drastically weakened our protections secured by the Fourth Amendment. 

Under the false aegis of protecting women from spousal abuse, the majority opinion both (1) ignores that other completely adeuqate and constitutional solutions exist under those horrid circumstances; and (2) lowers the consent threshold for police invasion of a residence to that of its weakest member. I agree with J. Ginsburg’s dissent that “[i]nstead of adhering to the warrant requirement, today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it."

As a final note, I would add that this decision most negatively effects those who live in multi-persons dwellings; i.e. the poor, colored, and young. For those keeping score at home, these populations - our friends and countrymen - already endure disproportionately overzealous police attention and persistent abuses of power. 

bluewatercomics:

Female Force: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: out tomorrow.  The Female Force series that features on extraordinary women that make a difference in society, features on Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Since the Clinton administratim appointed her making her the second female to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  This comic book features her life story from the start!. 

AWWWWW HELL YEAH. THE NOTORIOUS R.B.G. SON!
PRINCIPLED AS A MOTHERFUCKER, SMART AS A WHIP, AND CAN FIT IN AN OVERHEAD COMPARTMENT WHEN NECESSARY! bluewatercomics:

Female Force: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: out tomorrow.  The Female Force series that features on extraordinary women that make a difference in society, features on Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Since the Clinton administratim appointed her making her the second female to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  This comic book features her life story from the start!. 

AWWWWW HELL YEAH. THE NOTORIOUS R.B.G. SON!
PRINCIPLED AS A MOTHERFUCKER, SMART AS A WHIP, AND CAN FIT IN AN OVERHEAD COMPARTMENT WHEN NECESSARY! bluewatercomics:

Female Force: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: out tomorrow.  The Female Force series that features on extraordinary women that make a difference in society, features on Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Since the Clinton administratim appointed her making her the second female to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  This comic book features her life story from the start!. 

AWWWWW HELL YEAH. THE NOTORIOUS R.B.G. SON!
PRINCIPLED AS A MOTHERFUCKER, SMART AS A WHIP, AND CAN FIT IN AN OVERHEAD COMPARTMENT WHEN NECESSARY! bluewatercomics:

Female Force: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: out tomorrow.  The Female Force series that features on extraordinary women that make a difference in society, features on Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Since the Clinton administratim appointed her making her the second female to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  This comic book features her life story from the start!. 

AWWWWW HELL YEAH. THE NOTORIOUS R.B.G. SON!
PRINCIPLED AS A MOTHERFUCKER, SMART AS A WHIP, AND CAN FIT IN AN OVERHEAD COMPARTMENT WHEN NECESSARY! bluewatercomics:

Female Force: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: out tomorrow.  The Female Force series that features on extraordinary women that make a difference in society, features on Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Since the Clinton administratim appointed her making her the second female to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  This comic book features her life story from the start!. 

AWWWWW HELL YEAH. THE NOTORIOUS R.B.G. SON!
PRINCIPLED AS A MOTHERFUCKER, SMART AS A WHIP, AND CAN FIT IN AN OVERHEAD COMPARTMENT WHEN NECESSARY! bluewatercomics:

Female Force: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: out tomorrow.  The Female Force series that features on extraordinary women that make a difference in society, features on Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Since the Clinton administratim appointed her making her the second female to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  This comic book features her life story from the start!. 

AWWWWW HELL YEAH. THE NOTORIOUS R.B.G. SON!
PRINCIPLED AS A MOTHERFUCKER, SMART AS A WHIP, AND CAN FIT IN AN OVERHEAD COMPARTMENT WHEN NECESSARY!

bluewatercomics:

Female Force: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: out tomorrow.  The Female Force series that features on extraordinary women that make a difference in society, features on Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Since the Clinton administratim appointed her making her the second female to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  This comic book features her life story from the start!. 

AWWWWW HELL YEAH. THE NOTORIOUS R.B.G. SON!

PRINCIPLED AS A MOTHERFUCKER, SMART AS A WHIP, AND CAN FIT IN AN OVERHEAD COMPARTMENT WHEN NECESSARY!

(via notoriousrbg)

shortformblog:

Federal courts have authority under the Constitution to answer such questions only if necessary to do so in the course of deciding an actual “case” or “controversy.” As  used in the Constitution, those words do not include every sort of dispute, but only those “historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.” This is an essential limit on our power: It ensures that we act as judges, and do not engage in policymaking properly left to elected representatives.

For there to be such a case or controversy, it is not enough that the party invoking the power of the court have a keen interest in the issue. That party must also have “standing,” which requires, among other things, that it have suffered a concrete and particularized injury. Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit.

Bolded for emphasis.

The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. … While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved.”

squashed:

think-progress:

newsweek:

This is genius.

Love this. But CNN wasn’t the only one to get it wrong: Fox, Huffington Post, TIME too.

In fairness, I can understand CNN’s mistake. If you post your headline after reading the first few paragraphs of the syllabus, it looks like the mandate was struck down. The opinion essentially says, “The mandate is not constitutional under the commerce clause … but it is constitutional under the tax clause.” If you want to be the first to get the story up, I can see how you’d blow that call.

CNN should consider replacing it’s breaking news headlines with “FIRST!”

Bwahahahahaha!

newyorker:

Supreme Deciders
Today is the second day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s health-care-reform law. Over at Daily Comment, Jeffrey Toobin writes about how all this might end:
Where do the justices stand now? The four Democratic appointees—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—seem like sure votes to uphold the law. Clarence Thomas is a sure vote to invalidate the law. Anthony Kennedy is the Democrats’ best bet to join with them, although Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito do not seem out of the question as possibilities.
But who are these Justices? Visit newyorker.com for a slide show of the Justices and to read The New Yorker’s Supreme Court Profiles and other coverage—and then make your own guess about which way they might vote.

Oh gosh. Love love love this. newyorker:

Supreme Deciders
Today is the second day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s health-care-reform law. Over at Daily Comment, Jeffrey Toobin writes about how all this might end:
Where do the justices stand now? The four Democratic appointees—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—seem like sure votes to uphold the law. Clarence Thomas is a sure vote to invalidate the law. Anthony Kennedy is the Democrats’ best bet to join with them, although Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito do not seem out of the question as possibilities.
But who are these Justices? Visit newyorker.com for a slide show of the Justices and to read The New Yorker’s Supreme Court Profiles and other coverage—and then make your own guess about which way they might vote.

Oh gosh. Love love love this. newyorker:

Supreme Deciders
Today is the second day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s health-care-reform law. Over at Daily Comment, Jeffrey Toobin writes about how all this might end:
Where do the justices stand now? The four Democratic appointees—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—seem like sure votes to uphold the law. Clarence Thomas is a sure vote to invalidate the law. Anthony Kennedy is the Democrats’ best bet to join with them, although Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito do not seem out of the question as possibilities.
But who are these Justices? Visit newyorker.com for a slide show of the Justices and to read The New Yorker’s Supreme Court Profiles and other coverage—and then make your own guess about which way they might vote.

Oh gosh. Love love love this. newyorker:

Supreme Deciders
Today is the second day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s health-care-reform law. Over at Daily Comment, Jeffrey Toobin writes about how all this might end:
Where do the justices stand now? The four Democratic appointees—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—seem like sure votes to uphold the law. Clarence Thomas is a sure vote to invalidate the law. Anthony Kennedy is the Democrats’ best bet to join with them, although Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito do not seem out of the question as possibilities.
But who are these Justices? Visit newyorker.com for a slide show of the Justices and to read The New Yorker’s Supreme Court Profiles and other coverage—and then make your own guess about which way they might vote.

Oh gosh. Love love love this.

newyorker:

Supreme Deciders

Today is the second day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s health-care-reform law. Over at Daily Comment, Jeffrey Toobin writes about how all this might end:

Where do the justices stand now? The four Democratic appointees—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—seem like sure votes to uphold the law. Clarence Thomas is a sure vote to invalidate the law. Anthony Kennedy is the Democrats’ best bet to join with them, although Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito do not seem out of the question as possibilities.

But who are these Justices? Visit newyorker.com for a slide show of the Justices and to read The New Yorkers Supreme Court Profiles and other coverage—and then make your own guess about which way they might vote.

Oh gosh. Love love love this.

(via lafuguedantoine)

letterstomycountry:

squashed replied to your post: Personal Notes: On Reading Cases
And when it’s a Thomas opinion, I close the book. Because Thomas’s opinions are written terribly. Scalia was at least witty.
Thomas is horrible 99% of the time. But he is actually fairly lucid when he’s writing…

I’m not going to address Affirmative Action on the whole as theory or practice but I am sympathetic to your unease in finding yourself nodding along to Justice Thomas. I had the similar and unfortunate experience last week while reviewing my Con Law readings. His Grutter dissent is actually a stirring revival of the important and beautiful colorblind interpretation the Equal Protection Clause as well as a reality check on how lax the Court can be with the second prong of the Strict Scrutiny inquiry. I admit, I felt fairly strange telling a friend after class that I was both the President of my law school’s ACLU and (temporarily) in agreeance with Justice Thomas.

Shudder.

Thankfully this sympathy for the (originalist) devil(s) didn’t last too long. This morning I draw caricatures of Scalia sobbing like a baby in the margins of his particularly histrionic United States v. Virginia (1996) dissent.       D:    < Scalia

Anywho, relevant news is relevant: New York Times - Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Affirmative Action Case


“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.3 They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence *376 coerced by law-the argument of force in its worst form.”
— Justice Brandeis, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-76, 47 S. Ct. 641, 648, 71 L. Ed. 1095 (1927)

Montana high court upholds ban on election spending by corporations

HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court restored the state’s century-old ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees in a ruling Friday that interest groups say bucks a high-profile U.S. Supreme Court decision granting political speech rights to corporations.

The decision grants a big win to Attorney General Steve Bullock, who personally represented the state in defending its ban that came under fire after the “Citizens United” decision last year from the U.S. Supreme court.

"The Citizens United decision dealt with federal laws and elections — like those contests for president and Congress," said Bullock, who is now running for governor. "But the vast majority of elections are held at the state or local level, and this is the first case I am aware of that examines state laws and elections."

The corporation that brought the case and is also fighting accusations that it illegally gathers anonymous donations to fuel political attacks, said the state Supreme Court got it wrong. The group argues that the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, passed as a citizen’s ballot initiative, unconstitutionally blocks political speech by corporations.

The Montana Supreme Court said Montana has a “compelling interest” to uphold its rationally tailored campaign-finance laws that include a combination of restrictions and disclosure requirements.

A group seeking to undo the Citizens United decision lauded the Montana high court, with its co-founder saying it was a “huge victory for democracy.”

With this ruling, the Montana Supreme Court now sets up the first test case for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its Citizens United decision, a decision which poses a direct and serious threat to our democracy," John Bonifaz, of Free Speech For People, said in a statement.